Here is my theory about the 11 March 2004 terrorist attack suffered in Spain. It was carried out three days before the elections and that produced a change with respect to the polls.
The PP, an anti-nationalist and pro-US party, lost to Zapatero’s PSOE, establishing in power the most extremely pro-nationalist and anti-American PSOE ever seem before.
/*/
First of all, due to the complexity of the attack and its political efficacy, it seems to me almost certain that it was the work of a State. They are the only ones who have those capabilities.
There were several almost simultaneous attacks, without execution failures or leaks that discovered them. We only have to compare it with the latest attacks by ETA, local terrorism in Spain at the time, in some they themselves exploded with bombs, in others they were discovered before they could commit the crime.
Timing-wise, three days before the election, also seems very well studied. It allowed society to evolve from the initial shock to mobilization through politicians and media (in Spain mostly French and Italian owned) and from there to the effect on the electoral result.
/*/
Among the States to be considered would be the US, France, Germany, Russia, China… and little else. It must be taken into account that the country that did it had to be aware that over time it would be known who it was. Something like this ends up being known, whether it is made public or not. So it has to be a strong country, capable of sustaining itself after doing it. Even to get the authorship to be silenced in the face of the general public (which implies enormous power). So let’s start discarding countries. The US does not make sense because it is, after Spain, the one that was hurt the most. Spain was under its orbit (the photo of the Azores Summit was iconic) and it ceased to be. It lost a firm ally in the area and within the EU. The interests of Russia and China are far removed from such a specific issue as who governs Spain. So they would not complicate doing something so impressive and with so much risk. Germany was already playing in 2004 hand in hand with France, at least since 2002, with the rapprochement between Chirac and Schröder. And in Europe the areas of influence are quite spread out. Ukraine and Poland belong to Germany, Spain to France. So Germany would not be a credible author either. We only have France. And this option, unlike the rest, fits perfectly. So we will continue the analysis already on it.
/*/
The target would be to strengthen the Franco-German control of the EU, which was weakening: Spain grew above the European average, it had the support of the US against the Franco-German axis, it was over-represented in the EU since the treaty Nice, it was getting closer to other countries such as Portugal, the United Kingdom, Poland… If France and Germany wanted to continue to maintain their practically exclusive control, they needed to stop the rise of Spain and break that internal front in the EU.
This is not a minor goal. The EU was the largest economic area in the world. Controlling it or not involves a lot of power at stake. It is something important that can lead a country to take measures… let’s say drastic.
And if we look at the result of the attack, this was achieved. The benefit would have been obtained. Spain was separated from the US and aligned itself with France:
- Both at the national level where Zapatero allied himself with the secessionists (Tinell Pact) and resumed the path of nationalist decomposition of Spain.
- At the European level, where Zapatero unilaterally renounced the Nice conditions, facilitating Franco-German control of the EU, something that Aznar prevented.
- And at the international level, where Spain ceased to be a firm ally of the US to lead the most extreme version of the usual French and EU double game. Pretending to go hand in hand with the US but in practice supporting Palestine, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela… any country that opposes the US
/*/
But France did not have to do it alone. In fact, it was better for them to delegate it, since it was a bad action that could damage their image. Here comes Morocco, a traditional ally of both France and the US. And always interested in eroding Spain to its benefit. This country also matches.
Seen with hindsight, the Perejil Crisis can be interpreted as a preliminary test. An essay with which Morocco confirmed that in case of conflict France would support them. And they confirmed it, France did not support Spain, the US had to.
In addition, Morocco also obtained important loot after the attack. Zapatero changed Spain’s position regarding the Sahara to the benefit of Morocco. And the Sahara is a lot of a Sahara, you just have to look at a map.
I imagine, as a reinforcement of this idea, that this also explains the subsequent submission of the PSOE to Morocco. It is clear what trump card they have against them… after 2020 alliance between Morocco and USA, leaving France aside, now they don’t need to cover France and PSOE.
France’s ally may now become a problem for them.
/*/
We already have the authors, their motivation and the reward obtained. We are left with verisimilitude. Is it reasonable to think of such an action by these countries? I believe that the lack of respect for human rights on the part of the Moroccan State is not even necessary to argue. You just have to remember the things that happen on the border with Spain, where deaths are common and the result of a strategy of deliberate pressure. Or Moroccan intrigues, bribes, spies in the EU… also well known.
It is more difficult for us to assume such an action on the part of France. But I imagine that only general propaganda affects us there, we must not forget that the ownership of our media is mainly Central European. For example, both El Mundo and El País, the two big newspapers of the left and right, are basically French-owned, it is understandable that they convey an almost beatific image of that country.
But, if we remove that subjective assessment and look at the facts, France has a long tradition of promoting terrorist attacks in Spain. Let us remember the so-called ETA Sanctuary in France, from where ETA prepared its assassinations and where it took refuge after carrying it out… for decades and in democracy, not only during the Franco dictatorship.
We are all used to considering the US capable of anything, se see it constantly in films. The amazing thing is that we do not think the same of France or Germany. I imagine that they are things of media propaganda, I already say.
/*/
We already have who thought of it, France, and who took care of it, Morocco. Something that fits well with the phrase of Aznar (Spanish president in 2004, of the right-wing party, PP), saying in code what he thought could not be said openly: those who devised 11-M are “neither in distant mountains nor in remote deserts”.
Now there are the fringes. Once the attack was done, who took care that it had the desired political effect? How did you manage to cover up the authorship?
This part is easier, we just have to remember the phrase of the PSOE “we do not deserve a government that lies to us from the PSOE” accusing Aznar. The even more direct motto “murderous PP” of the most radical left (Iglesias one of those leaders, has been vice president with Sánchez later). Or the “three pairs of underpants” from SER, the PRISA (French-owned) radio station suggesting an Islamist suicide attack because of Spanish collaboration with the US in Iraq. It is clear that the PSOE and media accepted the gift and pushed for it to have an electoral effect.
And they also took it upon themselves to cover it up. Misleading the PP at first (false information about the explosives) and preventing an effective investigation and trial afterwards.
Why didn’t the PP, the clearly injured party, denounce him later? I imagine that because when it was already evident, some time later with the effects already produced, to denounce it was to confront France, a powerful ally of Spain. And they did not dare. They thought that it was not worth starting a conflict that they would not be able to win later.
We must not forget that by the time Rajoy (Aznar’s successor in the PP) came to the government in 2011, Spain was no longer what it was. It was already broken. Rajoy probably thought it wasn’t worth starting a conflict they wouldn’t be able to win. With a rising secessionism, a Public Debt of 70% basically in French and German hands and an annual Deficit of more than 10% of GDP. Spain was not the conditions for starting a conflict with France and Germany! they must have thought. (I don’t agree, I think extra Debt should be part of the reparation after a trial in the Court of Justice of the European Union or in The Hague?)
Why USA didn’t react either? I also have a theory about it. That implies the US are also having problems, even their own electoral fraud. But I wont elaborate on that here, it would be too much for a singe paper.
/*/
I think that with this my theory is already exposed. So I will make a small summary to finish:
- France planned it, when they already were allied with Germany.
- Morocco prepared it.
- Who knows what group of professionals executed it.
- PSOE, left wing party, accepted the electoral gift and covered up the attack, preventing the investigation.
- The PP gave up denouncing it to avoid conflicts with a powerful ally.
/***/
Note: Some people associate this attack with the NWO, globalism, the 2030 Agenda… I do not rule it out. What happens is that I associate those names with what I label as the Franco-German axis.
I consider that these global structures have a first German origin, in the Ostpolitik of the 70s, the collaboration of Germany with the USSR. And became dominant since about 2002, when France and Germany begin to collaborate strategically as if they were a single power.
/***/
Garage politics 
Leave a Reply